MEGH SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months' RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/- by the III Additional Munsif- Magistrate, Etawah. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo 4 months' RI. His conviction and sentence has been confirmed in appeal by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah. Hence this revision, which was admitted by me on the question of sentence only.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has, however, argued this revision on merits. I have heard him. His sole contention is that according to the report of the Public Analyst, the sample which was taken from the applicant was deficient in non-fatty solid contents by about 18 percent. There was no deficiency in fatty contents. As such, he has urged that the sample of cow's milk taken from the applicant by the Food Inspector on 26th August, 1975 cannot be deemed to be adulterated and, therefore, no offence has been committed by the applicant punishable under the aforesaid Act.

(3.) COUNSEL for the applicant has placed reliance on some cases of our Court, of which two may be referred. one is a Division Bench case decided by brothers S. B. Malik and J. P. Chaturvedi, JJ. on 6-1-1978 in Criminal Revision No. 2041 of 1972 Pooran Singh v. State and Criminal Revision No. 2042 of 1972 Kadam Singh v. State. In those cases also there was a deficiency in the non-fatty solid contents of milk. With all respects to the learned Judges, it appears to me from a perusal of that judgment that they have not decided the question of law whether the deficiency in non-fatty contents below the prescribed standard is or is not an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In the case with which the Division Bench was dealing the percentage of milk fat was almost double of the minimum requirement of law, while the percentage of non-fatty solids was abnormally low an practically non-existent. Their Lord- shi|S pointed out to certain circumstances on the basis of which they were of the opinion that "the report of the Public Analyst was far from convincing and we have grave doubts if the analysis of the sample was properly done." It was in these circumstances that the conviction of the accused was set aside. In my view, this case is clearly distinguishable.